The planets must be aligned funky or something. Today seems to be an idea day for me. Anyway, down in the Immersion & Co-Authoring thread Ron reasserted his claim that published metaplot was antithetical to Simultionist-to-Narrativist Drift.

I agree that this is true if you are talking about pre-published scenarios, in which there are world shattering events that MUST happen in game to keep the metaplot on track. Oh, and I use the term IN GAME to mean during actual play as opposed to some kind of discourse out side of play or while reading a sourcebook.

BUT I'm not entirely convinced that having a metaplot truly is antithetical to story creation IN GENERAL. My thoughts go something like this.

Note: I will use 7th Sea as an example since it is the only metaplot that I know very well. Those of you who play 7th Sea and wish to remain ignorant of some metaplot points probably shouldn't read this.

In the 7th Sea universe of Theah the Queen of Avalon has a daughter that was taken from her at birth and has been raised by this mysterious Sea Hag figure. I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly but the details are not imporant. Okay, this seems to me to be something RIPE for metaplot development. I fully expect some sourcebook down the line to have some kind of major world turning event involve this relationship. I don't know what it is because the element hasn't actually be used yet, only set up.

Now IF I use this relationship directly in somekind of relationship map/backstory manner AND if I wish to have coauthoring as Ron defines it, then I must allow for this relationship to develop in a manner befitting player decisions and I can not force decisions or outcomes. Okay, so now I run a huge risk of having that looming future metaplot point running COMPLETELY counter to anything that my have developed in my game. At this point I have two options. I can either FORCE my players via railroading, all roads lead to rome or whatever hand waving goes on into taking actions that comply with the predetermined published outcome OR I can let the players non-railroaded protagonistic outcome stand and ignore the published metaplot.

HOWEVER, this is only if I'm stupid enough to involve the Queen-Daughter conflict DIRECTLY. I'm just ASKING to be wacked on the head by the metaplot. But this doesn't mean I have to ignore the metaplot. To me the purpose of the metaplot is EXACTLY the opposite of what so many people seem to perceive it as. The common preception seems to be that the best players can hope for is to be color added to the metaplot. Where I see that the metaplot as color to be added to the player's personal stories.

Consider this. Say I invent a wholely new NPC who simply KNOWS about the Queen's Daughter. And I invent a Minor Noble house who also knows about this but their family is sworn to to guard this secret with their lives and the aformentioned NPC is blackmailing this family. Now let's say I use this conflict as an element in backstory. Now, the metaplot point merely acts as a McGuffin. I have incorporated a major "world secret" WITHOUT jeapordizing any future metaplot developments because the core conflicts don't go anywhere near the ACTUAL Queen-Daughter relationship. The players can let the NPC go on blackmailing the nobles. The player can kill the NPC. The players can kill the nobles. Hell, the players could print up flyers about the Queen's Daughter and post it all over town. Who says the townfolk have to believe them?

The point is all of this PERSONAL player authoring can go AROUND the metaplot without interfering with the metaplot directly. Let me use another more concrete example.

World War II is a metaplot. Think about it. There is a real course of events that happened. Now if you want to involve the players in huge course-of-the-war altering events then yeah, you're going to have to throw out history and allow the players to change things if you want to promote coauthoring. However, if you're focusing on a personal story that takes place in a village on the coast of France and spans the time period just before, the day of, and just after D-Day then that doesn't mean your players are being stipped of their ability to coauthor just because a major battle of the war will occur and quite likely impact their story regardless of their actions.

Does this make sense?

Jesse

Yes, but WWII has already happened. We know the outcome.

If I'm playing 7th Sea and my character kills Duke Whatshisface and then next month a book comes out explaining that Duke Whatshisface is actually an immortal alien (or whatever), then it (the metaplot) does interfere.

That's the problem I have. The plot being spooled out as a marketing tool for the GM to channel to the players. LAME.

Jesse,

You are making perfect sense, because you have just eliminated metaplot in favor of setting.

The story is no longer the 7th Sea series of events, or WWII, or the Shadows vs. the Whatstheirname in Babylon 5, or the political and military maneuverings of the Lunar Empire in Glorantha. All of those are now simply setting.

And settings are a big, important part of stories. Specifically, a story OF THESE PEOPLE in this particular place and time.

The more elaborate and interesting the setting in both time and space, the more it may contribute to the Premise. Star Wars is fuck-all about the fall of the Empire. It's totally about Luke Skywalker and his father. The setting provides a glorious visual backdrop for this story.

What made the 7th Sea material metaplot is that it was DEFINED as the story, and characters' actions were to BE THERE to witness THE STORY (and comment upon it, etc). Not only was there no changing it, there was no escaping our centralized attention on those NPCs' actions either.

If, on the other hand, that material is setting (as you describe) for the story about some folks IN the setting, then we are ensconced in Narrativism, subclass Setting-based Premise.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Jared is correct too - one of the most important aspects of Glorantha as a setting is that the outcome of the Hero Wars is not a secret to role-players.

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-11-09 14:57 ]

You are making perfect sense, because you have just eliminated metaplot in favor of setting.

Jesse,

Yup, I'm serious. What you are describing is not metaplot, it is setting and what happens in it is simply ... no more than ... PLOT.

"War and Peace" does not have a metaplot. The various events of Russian history are its setting, and what happens in it is its plot.

Metaplot for role-playing is a whole different thing. That is a matter of saying "THIS" (the war of the Camarilla or against the Worm or the appearance of the tribe of Joshua, etc, etc) is the STORY. Buy the story, read the story, and play the story. Be your character in the (THIS) story.

A GM who does the same thing with/to players without relying on sourcebooks is also using metaplot. That's why we talk about "published" metaplot, although functionally it's the same thing.

Check out the differences between (1) such a metaplot (published or not) and (2) generating actual story in a complex setting, which itself includes plenty of preplanned events. There is a huge difference.

I have dozens of role-playing supplements and published adventures on my shelves - easily in the hundreds, actually. The vast majority of them (excluding the fight-through-obstacles ones) are EXACTLY what you describe as the player-characters being "well-armed couriers" for More Important NPCs.

In my Hero Wars game at present, in 1625, the dragon will unearth itself and eat practically every damn Lunar soldier in Dragon Pass (plus sundry anyone else who doesn't scurry fast enough). This scene was written by Greg Stafford in the late 1960s and is canonical Glorantha material. Both I and my players know about it, even though our game is set in 1622.

However, our goal of play is not to make sure that the player-characters get to the site of the event and see it, at that time. Nor is it even necessary for their play to be about facilitating or trying to prevent its occurrence (although it could include some aspects of that). No, our goal of play is the magical, moral, and political impact of our own player-characters in their chosen sphere of influence, and what comes of that. When the dragon rises, it will provide a change in the SETTING for this, ACTUAL story creation.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-11-09 15:42 ]

Okay, so how's this:

What if the world is small, and the Setting is fully laid beforehand. But the world is SO private that the players really can't help but affect things.

Say my game takes place in an underground community. In the main rulebook, I outline several different key Setting points:

• The underground community will break out onto the surface.
  
• After a few years of exploration, they will be attacked by surface-dwellers
  
• They lose, and retreat, sealing off all contact
  
• A holy prophet comes and grants them divine powers.
  
• They rise up and finally defeat the surface-dwellers.
  

Zak,

I don't think you're seeing my point.

Forget all this business of "affecting" things. It's not a matter of affecting things, or of what's set-in-stone vs. what isn't. The distinction is precisely where I laid it out for Jesse.

In metaplot-driven play, a great big story is pre-planned that encompasses a whole setting. The player-characters' entire existence is for the purpose of viewing the story, and offering dialogue about it, or as Jesse puts it, being a courier for the REAL main characters.

In plot-creating play, huge and important setting-events can be involved, and they can be pre-planned to an extreme degree. But the story is not ABOUT those events. It is about the player-characters and their situation, actions, and decisions during those events.

So never mind what they can and cannot affect. In my Hero Wars game, the dragon will awaken in 1625 and eat half or more of the Lunar army in Dragon Pass. That's fixed. But that is not the story being told by the role-playing; it is context and a big change in the setting for the story that we ARE telling/making.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-11-09 23:12, Ron Edwards wrote:
In plot-creating play, huge and important setting-events can be involved, and they can be pre-planned to an extreme degree. But the story is not ABOUT those events. It is about the player-characters and their situation, actions, and decisions during those events.

Gordon,

Your example is exactly on target.

My point is that when the setting-material is used as Gordon describes, it is NOT properly called metaplot, but simply setting, which in this case happens to have a lot of changes going on in the world.

As an aside, nothing about Narrativist play demands that every moment of every session is solely devoted to squinty-eyed scripting. Good stories come in all shapes and sizes and paces ... some meander, some are short (embedded in a sea of a long-term changing setting), some are long (enscapulating that same long-term changing setting). What you describe sounds like powerful Narrativism to me.

Best,
Ron

In some of the WW material -- Vampire and WW -- our groups have had interesting takes on the metaplot/setting issue. I tend to see setting as a starting point, and all other published material as suggested avenues to explore changes to the setting. With Vampire, so many of my players knew all the behind the scenes metaplot/true history material that I ended up departing substantially from canon in certain areas in order to add interesting twists into the game, in essence using metaplot as judo. Metaplot, in my games, is what players understand to be the history and politics, but I make no guarantees that it is the truth.

Tribe 8 is tough to alter if you buy into their supplemental material because their published adventures form a pretty rigidly linear metaplot. Interesting as it is (I think T8 is well-written, interesting stuff, a great example of original world creation), players have no control over macro events, but are merely witnesses, as Ron pointed out.

White Wolf is more flexible, if only because I don't bother to buy their storyline supplements, but also because so much of what occurs behind the scenes in the World of Darkness is part of the secret world, such that swapping out content and making material responsive to player actions becomes far easier.

To be honest, the biggest metaplot issue I'd run across was in a brief Lord of the Rings (GURPS) game I'd considered running. There's a lot of room in Middle Earth, but my players all wanted to have some involvement in the War of the Ring. I didn't want to alter the events from the books, and I couldn't figure out a way to satisfy the players' desires to be important heroes without tramping on that forbidden territory. That was a long time ago, when I was much less savvy about story creation. Were I to approach Middle Earth again, I don't think it'd be a problem.

Best,

Blake

Ron wrote ...
In plot-creating play, huge and important setting-events can be involved, and they can be pre-planned to an extreme degree. But the story is not ABOUT those events. It is about the player-characters and their situation, actions, and decisions during those events.

So never mind what they can and cannot affect. In my Hero Wars game, the dragon will awaken in 1625 ...

What made the 7th Sea material metaplot is that it was DEFINED as the story, and characters' actions were to BE THERE to witness THE STORY (and comment upon it, etc). Not only was there no changing it, there was no escaping our centralized attention on those NPCs' actions either.

John,

You're right regarding the basic rulebooks of the AEG games. Few basic game rules include metaplot. It mainly shows up in the course of a line of supplements.

No one, especially after reading and playing Orkworld, could imagine you as being a "puppetmaster" writer for role-playing games. The company plans and line developers for 7th Sea and L5R, that is to say, Not You, are responsible for the metaplot in their publications.

Best,
Ron

I may be missing something, as I never got into 7th Sea, and I've not bought a Vampire supplement in a while, but does meta-plot as in bad meta-plot actually exist?

I think this is Jesse's point, is bad meta-plot just GM's putting the events of an ongoing world to a terrible use. After all, the only difference I can see between the 'good' 7th Sea Jesse describes and the 'bad' 7th Sea other people have described is what people have done with it.

As a result, what are these bad meta-plot supplements? And does this link in with the style of play a group prefers - is say a simulationist more likely to incorporate bad metaplot while a narrativist uses it as colour/premise whatever we are calling it these days?

_________________
Ian O'Rourke
www.fandomlife.net
The e-zine of SciFi media and Fandom Culture.

[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-11-11 18:34 ]

Yeah, I must say I see it as "dynamic setting" more than anything else. I've never been tempted to use a metaplot as THE plot my PC's will experience, but I think its a great thing to lend a sense of time and place to an existing world.

The only real function of the "metaplot", IMO, is so that the GM can plant scenes that are tangential to whatever the PC's are doing, and yet when examined in retrospect provide an understanding of how the world changed.

I'm positively drawn to such designs, because that dynamism of setting feeds my Sim/Exploratory monkey. Now that I've got a handle on L5R's "metaplot" (no mean feat, let me tell you) I intend to exploit it ruthlessly. I see it as a major way to escape "PC solipsism" in which PC's tend to avoid becoming committed to broad in game events and movements. If things are happening - the movers are moving and the shakers are shaking - then, like real life, PC's will discuss these developments amongst themselves and with NPC's, speculate on what will happen next, what should happen next, whether what happened was a good thing or a bad thing.

As physics has discovered, space and time are inextricably linked. I think that "metaplots" just give us setting-over-time, rather than presenting a static snapshot. AndI've never really even contemplated making my PC's significant decision-makers in such games ever since a nasty experience with Dragonlance.

No one, especially after reading and playing Orkworld, could imagine [John] as being a "puppetmaster" writer for role-playing games. The company plans and line developers for 7th Sea and L5R, that is to say, Not You, are responsible for the metaplot in their publications.

In metaplot-driven play, a great big story is pre-planned that encompasses a whole setting. The
player-characters' entire existence is for the purpose of viewing the story, and offering dialogue about it, or as Jesse puts it, being a courier for the REAL main characters.

Hello,

I agree that metaplot is "bad GMing," but I object to the use of "JUST bad GMing." I read that "just" to mean "rather than bad publishing." I think that publication practices of various companies actually militate AGAINST the (effective) use of "large plot" as people are describing.

[Please note that the use of "bad" in this discussion is relative to the gaming styles of me, Gareth, Gareth, and others in the discussion. If you like metaplot, enjoy it and pay no attention to us.]

I do not agree with the idea that, "Since I am wise and skilled enough to avoid using the supplements as a straitjacket, then all is well with such practices."

I do not think that many publications of Tribe 8, Legend of the Five Rings, Dragonlance, Werewolf: the Apocalypse, Dark Sun, Vampire: Dark Ages, or many other games can be read as anything but pre-scripted adventures in the context of the authors' [line-developers'] complete, actual, and finished storyline. To fail to follow the storyline (well above the notion of "changing setting") is to fail to use the supplement.

In the Athas supplement of Dark Sun, for instance, one is literally referred to the pages of the accompanying novel (of the slave revolt) that one's character is permitted to WITNESS. Some NPC yotz frees the slaves and leads the revolt. Your player-characters enjoy the privilege of being an arena slave, being present at the revolt, and "fighting on the steps of the pyramid" near this yotz, who goes on to take over the city from the top of the pyramid. The actual play is LITERALLY INSTRUCTED to follow the novel, and the players' role is to revel in "being there, just like in the book."

Of course, as GM, you may ignore all this. I am not discussing what you may ignore, but what is published. People learn role-playing value systems from this stuff.

Best,
Ron

I agree with Ron that, as written, most metagame supplements and such seem to intend to be used in the "poor" manner descrbed, and, since this is so, it is more difficult to use the metagame provided in the "good" manner also descibed above. A classic example is the CoC supplement that I just got done reading, the titanic "Beyond the Mountains of Madness". At 440 pages or so it easily comes in as one of the most voluminous gaming supplements ever. And it certainly reads as if the GM is supposed to railroad the players right through the text (as most CoC supplements do). Thus it will indicate what the PCs actions are supposed to do at every decision, for example.

Anyhow, if I ever use it (I intend to get my $35 out of it) I would simply use it as a sourcebook for an adventure, and let the PCs have much more control of the situation (probably going with a more Illusionist approach). One might possibly even use it as a narrative backdrop. If the book had been written to allow such, I think that it would have been about 100 pages or more shorter as it mostly involves dropping out all the references to what the PCs must do. As it is, it is a very dense refernce and very difficult to be used in the "good" fashion.

This is an extreme example, but I think that there are steps that writers can take to make the "good" method easy to use with the material. Simply presenting as setting is usually a good start. The Middle Earth supplements from ICE were pretty good this way. No timelines or anything, just placs to go, things to kill. :smile:

Mike

On 2001-11-12 09:52, Ron Edwards wrote:

To fail to follow the storyline (well above the notion of "changing setting") is to fail to use the supplement.

In the Athas supplement of Dark Sun, for instance, one is literally referred to the pages of the accompanying novel (of the slave revolt) that one's character is permitted to WITNESS. Some NPC yotz frees the slaves and leads the revolt. Your player-characters enjoy the privilege of being an arena slave, being present at the revolt, and "fighting on the steps of the pyramid" near this yotz, who goes on to take over the city from the top of the pyramid. The actual play is LITERALLY INSTRUCTED to follow the novel, and the players' role is to revel in "being there, just like in the book."

Jesse,

Well, adventures are supplements. Or rather, they are where you'll find the majority of the problems like this. But as an example of a pure source book with a published metaplot, how about the Shadow World Master Atlas Addendum by ICE for RM? It is purely source material, and in it you'll find a timeline that describes a list of many of the unfolding plots in the world. It's a perfect example of metaplot in a supplement. And, as written, you'd expect that the GM is supposed to ensure that the events in question happen on time, thus making it of the railroady variety.

Also, the Deadlands stuff you mentioned have a problem in that though they may seem like setting more than plot they do enumerate events that are revealed only through that product. The problem, of course, being that if you've already been into territory covered by the book you may have trampled on that supplements metaplot. Which makes you wonder why they didn't include it in the core book. The reason, of course, is marketing, but it's not a particularly good one.

Note that though I see the distinctions between these sorts of materials that I find that (possibly through all the practice that I've had) I can use these materials in the maneer that I like anyway. For example, the SWMAA noted above is easy to use as setting product simply by saying something like the timelines are "what would happen if the NPCs got their way and the players weren't there to change things". Almost like a plan of actions for the bad guys. Anyhow, as long as you allow the actions of the PCs to affect the actual outcome, it's all good.

Note that this is easier for me to acomplish as all I'm looking for is Illusionism. I can secretly railroad things to occur on occasion. As opposed to Narrativism where these plans can only be held out as potential bangs. For the simulationist it is a bit easier to convert pushy metaplot into something useful than it is for the Narrativist.

And, for those who like it, metaplot is absolutely key to good old out-in-the-open railroad play. This is only "bad GMing" assuming that the players don't like this style of play. Which admittedly may be most players. I'm willing to postulate that there may be a few for whom this is not true, however.

Mike

And, as written, you'd expect that the GM is supposed to ensure that the events in question happen on time, thus making it of the railroady variety.

People learn role-playing value systems from this stuff.

I couldn't possibly agree more strongly. For instance, I really believe that Dragonlance created a mental phase shift throughout the universe of RPG players in the way that they understood the nature of game scenarios. I'm unaware of any metaplot-driven AD&D scenario published prior to Dragonlance. In every single module published by TSR prior to Dragonlance, the characters were basically the center of the universe. And for all practical purposes, their actions were what the world reacted to. But Dragonlance was the opposite of that. It was a plot that dragged the players along for the ride.

It was a massive publishing initiative that had the effect of unconsciously educating gamemasters that this is how a campaign is supposed to be done.

And for years and years that's the way we did things. Even when we weren't playing Dragonlance, we emulated the structure. We created plots and pushed the players from event to event. Dragonlance was the template from which future campaigns were made.

Paul

p.s. There have been some great metaplot discussions in the Gaming Outpost Critical Hit forum, and I think that forum has just been made accessible to non-subscribers. Look for the "Vas is das 'metaplot'?" thread.

Hey Jesse,

Just because an event must happen on time does not mean that it is antithetical to Narrativism or Story Creation. Look at my World War II example.

Check out the "Metaplot - the sequel" thread in Critical Hit on Gaming Outpost for a discussion of "underbelly" tactics.

Paul

Well, I think that there is a spectrum from the "good" style to the "bad". The deadlands presentation may just fit the bill of setting presented not as plot. But I assure you that the ICE presentation in SWMAA is presented as plot. In fact a couple of the published adventures then ascribe right to the meta-plot as written. After the players find the magic whatsis then lord so-and-so will send agents after them. That sort of thing.

Shadowrun has tons of this stuff. Is Dunkelzahn supplementary or an adventure? I don't know, but he sure has metaplot written all over him, and he is revealed across several books. Heck, to the extent that setting stuff is released as an "adventure" or "scenario" it is likely to be metaplot. To the extent that such stuff is released as supplements it tends to be more just setting. Perfect example is the MERP stuff. I can't ever remember them releasing anything that they called an adventure. It was all supplements that described the entire world. And they were great at introducing setting without plot. It was up to the players to go to these places intent on killing stuff to develop a plot from the material. :wink:

I ran the ICE Shadow World metaplot with so-so success. The game went for four years or so, but the largest part of the plots were never unravelled (perhaps I was revealing too slowly :wink: ). Always did want the players to get involved in politics with the demigods in that one. Oh well.

Mike

On 2001-11-12 14:10, Paul Czege wrote:

In every single module published by TSR prior to Dragonlance, the characters were basically the center of the universe. And for all practical purposes, their actions were what the world reacted to. But Dragonlance was the opposite of that. It was a plot that dragged the players along for the ride.

Jesse,

I pretty much agree with your summary. Oh, there are one or two nuances or versions of the process, but I think you're on target.

Best,
Ron

plots in the world. It's a perfect example of metaplot in a supplement. And, as written, you'd expect that the GM is supposed to ensure that the events in question happen on time, thus making it of the railroady variety.

Well, as a confessed background junkie I'll make a few comments here.

I know WW's Vampire metaplot quite well, and one of the things that they make very clear is that everything they give you is merely a starting point. Some of their books even go into details of "cool things you can change to diverge from what we say". It's all just background ideas, how you use them is up to you.

Course they then spoil all of this by writing scenarios (the Transylvania Chronicles being particularly guilty) where PCs are railroaded to a ridiculous degree, and turn up to witness NPCs doing the important stuff. Not in every scenario, some are open ended moral dilemas which are really nicely thought out, but enough exist to cause annoyance.

So, Metaplot is just a tool, it can be used for good or ill, just like any other tool. Often people writing for the same company have very different ideas of how to use that tool.

There's probably a comment that could be made here about corporate structures too, and indie designers being able to keep a more consistent personal vision in their games where bigger companies are simply unable to do so.


Matt

On 2001-11-13 04:55, contracycle wrote:
Hmm, still having major trouble seeing what the problem is with this, UNLESS the GM goes out of the way to place the PC's in the line of fire, so to speak. I think such a "metaplot" is a virtuoous thing, shows far more attention to design and the internal logic of setting to lend it some dynamism. In fact I'd go so far as to say that settings wiothout such dynamism are substantially weaker.

Sure, actul published suplpements may vary in their implementations, but I think that the development of metaplots is a strong developement; it takes us out os a solipsists, centre-of-the-world, nothing-happens-unless-the-characters-are-there-to-see-it mode of treating characters. Reminds me of CRPG's, actually. Instead we are recognising that no description of a social state is permanent, we know that everything changes all the time, and are starting to represent and realise that complexity in 9our games. Onwards and upwards I say.

is often not the case. Too often I find myself reading ssentences like "When the characters reach Smemblin the volcano will start to erupt." Mentally I have to change this to "The volcano near Smemblin may erupt at some point." Worse is stuff like "after the characters obtain

Metaplot is world events and the like. What we've been saying is that if players are railroaded to these events then that's bad Metaplot. If they are just setting, that's good Metaplot. Or, if youlike Gareth, the point at which Metaplot is forced to become micro-plot (or game-plot, or whatever), is the point at which it is a "bad-thing" for most. However, if players found themselves drawn naturally to a Metaplot event or happened across it, thus making it part of the micro-plot, that is a "good-thing" for most.

I believe the term Meta is used here as it is plot that is determined before hand by out-of-game power as opposed to being the result of in-game events. Do I have that right everyone? Just like Metagame rules involve game forces that are external to the game "reality".

The Macro/Micro thing would make more sense in regard to the scope of the events. Macro-plot sounds more like wars and such, as opposed to Micro-Plot which sounds more like character actions, etc. The opposite of Meta-plot would be just Plot, I'd think.

Mike

I think you are defining terms to meet your argument again.

Oh boy. I am using the term Metaplot as I've had it defined to me (or as I remember that definition, I will stand corrected if someone will just correct me). I was only tring to clarify. I apollogize if I seem to be trying to impose a hierarchy of terms on you that you have not accepted. Not my intent. The Micro/Macro thing I was just trying to apply what I thought would be the common use of such a term for clarity again, but I have no particular authority here. Just trying to see if we could reach a consensus on terms. Obvioulsy that won't happen.

So who cares? What is your definition? I'll happily use that. It does not change my argument. There is printed material that has events in them that seem to be written with the intent that the GM run the players to the events. This is what I was talking about. This is what I said was bad, and I think that there is agreement about that it is bad. For most players. There is other similar printed stuff that just presents as setting. Most prefer this as it's easier to use in the method prefered by most.

Sometimes these events are world shaking events, and sometimes they are much more personal. But in any case, the GM can force the players to go to any event or become involved in any characters plot, and, to the extent that GMs do not want to do this, such stuff that is written this way is bad for them.

Now that I've stated my argument in a Jargonless mode, which part do you disagree with? Or do we agree? Or is there some other issue that I've not addressed?

Mike

On 2001-11-11 18:33, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
I may be missing something, as I never got into 7th Sea, and I've not bought a Vampire supplement in a while, but does meta-plot as in bad meta-plot actually exist?
... is bad meta-plot just GM's putting the events of an ongoing world to a terrible use.

It's always the GM? The writer is never at fault? C'mon, John, I like the way that you write setting events, but would you say that nobody ever wrote such events with the intent of having them be central to play? Such that they were poorly informative, and hard to parse for better play? Nobody?

Mike

My experience with metaplot is that a lot of GMs get frustrated with it because they have to deal with players that don't understand that the GM, not the books, are the final arbiter of what is and what is not, in the particular game world.

I myself have had to deal with more than one person that, upon hearing that I ran a "standard vanilla" Vampire campaign (ie: Camarilla PCs, no Elders, no Minor Bloodlines, no really funky stuff) set in New York, exclaimed, "You can't do that! New York is Sabbat-controlled!"

I dread playing with these people, because they've bought and memorized all the X-By-Night books, all the ClanBooks, all the supplements, and I haven't; then when I mention that the Prince of Chicago is named Loretta, and they complain "No, Lodin is the Prince of Chicago! And he's got such-and-such Disciplines, and this and that and the other thing..."

The concept that this was *my* game, with *my* background, never even occurred to them. These people for whom the concept of running the game with only the basic rulebook (and maybe a GM's guide of some sort) and nothing else, is completely alien. These people that buy books like Children of the Inquisition, just so they could have Dracula's stats, and actually use him in a game.

John W,

I'm with Mike on this one. I consider a great deal of RPG material to be written in such a way that it is very difficult to use the material except to generate the large-scale outcome dictated by the authors. I was NOT parodying the material in Dark Sun - it is explicit and serious. And Mike's parody-material reads, to me, frighteningly similar to actual published supplements' text.

As I said before, this tends to apply to material in scenarios and sourcebooks, not to the basic rules texts.

Now, can a "good GM" overcome this? Sure - probably by not buying the friggin' supplement/scenario in the first place.

But that is not a valid defense, to me, of the writing practices in the first place. Certainly not for WW authors who are supposed to be promoting "story-telling" as they advertise all over the game covers.

Best,
Ron

As has been mentioned, there's always a way for a "good" GM to use the info in a supplement (and not just by ignoring it). If, however, you thought the supplement was going to make managing the details of the world and your PC's interactions there easier . . . big mistake, at least that's what I found. "Metaplot"-driven supplements can be full of cool, well-developed ideas, further expansions on the environment and etc. They DON'T reduce the GM's workload at all (again, in my experience). That's what *I* thought a planned-metaplot game like 7th Sea might offer, only to discover that such an expectation is a little crazy - if it HAD succeded, a lot of what's neat about RP'ing (the creativity, invention, imagination - stuff like that) also tends to get "reduced".

Also, I'd say there definately is such a thing as doing "good" (in intention, i.e., NOT the Dark Sun example used by Ron) Metaplot poorly - making mistakes in the way you implement it. Sometimes, those mistakes can cripple the ability to use the "neutral tool", so sometimes, it stops being a neutral tool and becomes a bad one. Something like (I may not have the details exactly right here - it's been a while since my attempt to run 7th Sea) forgetting to mention in the "core" books that players who pick the Knights of the Rose and Cross faction shouldn't have sorcery, beacuse (as revealed in THEIR supplement) they HATE sorcerrors - that is really just . . . a mistake. Not an easily excusable one, either.

If I remember correctly, John and other game designers who work (or worked) in metaplot-driven game lines have mentioned elsewhere that sometimes, the reason info isn't revealed "earlier" (in publication terms) is because the writers themselves haven't invented it yet. IMO, that's only an acceptable explanation SOME of the time, for certain kinds of information. Other times, it's evidence of a failure to adequatly design/QA/think through the game line. And I'm pretty certain that publishing lines have sometimes been known to intentionally delay revealing information . . . in the interest of selling more books.

Now, writing RPG books is a high-effort, low reward endeavor, and part of me is just happy anything gets published at all. Who am I to complain about how they make their meager moola? Another part of me says I should be expecting better - DEMANDING better, beacuse otherwise it won't GET better.

Uh . . . I guess the relevant point for Jesse's topic here is that even a background/setting-through-time, PC-story supportive (as a goal) Metaplot can be bad for story if it doesn't do its' job well - e.g., if it contains too many jarring, nothing-hinted-at-that "revelations". Or . . . well, you get the idea.

Gordon, who figures RPGs oughta be like computer games - about 50-60 bucks for the initial release, and then the good ones get a number of 20-30 dollar expansion packs in various shapes, sizes, and flavors. But if you've got too many "bugs" . . . expect the gaming media to tear you a new one.

There are few phrases that make me cringe more than "the World of Darkness metaplot". Its not that I'm opposed to the idea of RPGs having stories that are told in bit by bit through copious amounts of source books and other supplements so that in order to know the "metaplot" someone needs to invest $100 a month and 20-40 hours reading to keep up with it. After all, what could be a finer display of market strategy that that? WW is an industrial leader because its sucked thousands of gamers into believing that the metaplot is both interesting and important.

No, what makes me hide beneath the covers is that fact that those gamers start taking the metaplot so ~seriously~. Visit any WW forum and you will see what I mean. Even though the writers and developers insist that the "metaplot" is not the be-all and end-all of WW role-playing, a disturbing proportion of WW gamers take the metaplot as Canon (insert pseudo-religious reverence). He Who Is Not A Canon Player or GM is An Imbecile And Must Be Flamed goes forth the mantra.

Everyone starts increasing their expectations. God help you if you don't know what the metaplot is- and god help you if your character ~acts~ like he/she has read the source books. Meanwhile, WW continues to spew out book after book that subconsciously puts the player more and more into the role as audience and observer and GMs pick up on the fact that its more important to observe Canon than it is to be creative and tell a story on their own initiative.

The WW authors try and rally everyone back to player-as-creator but at the same time they continue to push out the metaplot because they like residual checks and metaplot sells. They assuage their guilt with blurbs about The Golden Rule and STs making the game their own, but that doesn't really help. The sense that metaplot is essential for a good game is ingrained simply in the fact that people keep buying the books. Readers are just as good to a company like WW as players.

This is still a totally subjective problem, IMO.

Lets tackle the WW canon. Here is a product line, produced over time, which necessarily contains lots of data. Furthermore, there is an unknown number of players using this data and putting their own spin on it. HOWEVER they all share one known resource which is the actual, physically published material which carries the WW imprint.

Should people stick to this canon? I would say, of course. To say "I want to play Vamp but without any of the established details" is a severe challenge to the players legitimate expectation based on the prior, known, record of the product/subgenre/whatever you call it. Even worse, the above "problem" with players expecting canonical details implies to me a profound arrogance on the part of the GM. Imagine I invited you to a game based on, say, the lord of the rings... and then I told you that, no, in MY game Suaron does not exist, in MY game elves are not elves, in MY game hobbits average 8 feet tall. Don't you think you players would be a teensy bit disconcerted to discover that many of the expecatations they had - the reasons they agreed to play this game, arguably - have been utterly invalidated by GM diktat.

To place responsibility for this problem on the shoulders of the players is just an exercise in shifting the blame, IMO. If what you want is to play Vamp withoutb the established facts, as it were, then surely it is your responisibility to create such an environment. It's not as if WW have published data on EVERY vampire in the world in EVERY city; surely it is not beyond the wit of man to set such a game in some other city, or indeed, period. But no, the primacy of the GM must not be challenged - the GM wants both to ride the coat-tails of a successful product with an established history, but not to be bound by that history. In other words, to both have the cake and eat it.

If you don't like it, write it yourself. If you buy into a product line, you are implicitly buying into a lots of its established detail, and your players have a reason, even a right, to expect that your work will be broadly in line with what has been established. I'm equally unsympathetic to companies which produce such a history and then hand-wave any discrepancies or problems it has itself introduced. Take some responsibility for your own product, for gods sake; the only thing that ALL the real games in the world have is the stuff you acxtually published. To the extent that there is a common experience of Vmapire, it IS necessarily the printed product line - to then whinge that people are TOO canonical with your established work strikes me as gross hypocrisy - if you didn't WANT people to use it, why the hell did you publish it? Sounds like a desperate excuse for poor quality and continuity control if you ask me.

There simply is nor excuse for injured martyrdom when your players object to 8-foot hobbits.

So who cares? What is your definition? I'll happily use that. It does not change my argument. There is printed material that has events in them that seem to be written with the intent that the GM run the players to the events.

Sometimes these events are world shaking events, and sometimes they are much more personal. But in any case, the GM can force the players to go to any event or become involved in any characters plot, and, to the extent that GMs do not want to do this, such stuff that is written this way is bad for them.

Gareth--

Your White Wolf example pinpoints exactly why I have absolutely no use for most published RPGs these days as written--they don't just give you some firing pins for the imagination, they give you detailed setting & plotlines that are pushed as "canonical". Sorry, but if I want to read a novel, I'll read a novel. If I want to run a roleplaying game, in which my players & I create our own stories, than I'll run something that doesn't shove someone else's stories down our throats.

That being said, your comment on the "arrogance" of the GM regarding the discarding of "canon" is a bit off. For one thing, the Lord of the Rings example isn't quite right, because the Middle Earth stuff you mentioned wasn't metaplot, it was setting. But a lot of the White Wolf stuff isn't necessarily setting. Also, LOTR is a lot more established than the World of Darkness, so I would imagine player expectations regarding Middle Earth would be a lot higher than Chicago By Night. But when all is said & done, I think it falls to this: if I pay money for an RPG, including setting, than I'll damn well do with it what I please. Make the hobbits 8 feet tall? Ignore White Wolf's setting in favor of my own? Stop buying 7th Sea stuff after the initial books & have my group make our own Theah stories? Hell yes! Is that arrogant? I suppose. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. If a player of mine looked at me aghast for daring to change the "canonical" setting of Vampire...well, I don't think they'd last long in my group, if for no other reason than I'd wonder at just how much of their own creativity they'd be willing to invest in the game. I don't think that buying a game means you also have to buy into the party line, get in step, & following what the game designers are doing. Forget the game designers--I bought the game, it's mine now, to do with as I please.

Then don't buy it. Problem solved.

And then you can invite your players to a game of Band Of Brothers, your very own Private Ryan-based RPG, and set it in a small fishing on the coast of Java wheer all the characters are anthropomorphic animals. Becuase, of course, setting a WW2 in WW2 would just have been SO uncreative, dahling... and if the player complain, dump em! They just were'nt imaginative enough, obviously.

Hello,

If I'm not mistaken, this thread is getting away from debate and has moved into several "Well, here's ME" statements.

At one point the question concerned WHETHER a variety of role-publications practiced railroad-style metaplot tactics at all. (I'll call this Question #1.)

It seems to have shifted towards whether that's evil or tolerable or what-have-you, and THAT seems to have shifted toward "I create stuff like XYZ" and "I create stuff like ABC." This latter discussion has bred the unpleasant child of sarcasm.

When I see a question shift like this, it usually means that it was resolved, but the participants would not like to acknowledge that. If anyone can correct me about the following, I'd appreciate it, but I think that we HAVE established that the railroady-style metaplot DOES exist as a publishing style or tactic, and that it is recognizably distinct from "setting," even "changing large-scale setting."

Some may still disagree. I'm willing to keep up with that debate, as I'm far from done with it myself. The floor remains open.

However, I'm not willing to participate in "Well I game like THIS!" and "Oh yeah? Well I game like THAT!" exchanges. I have no qualms about exerting this value system in a dictatorial way, by shutting down the thread, if they continue.

Best,
Ron

Gareth,

I agree with you Gareth. And I have since the start. Our only disagreement seems to have been with the use of the terms. Let's use your terms, then (I won't argue that you are shifting the definitions to suit your argument, that would just get us going in circles).

Given your definition of Metaplot, all Metaplot is good (in the context of this discussion). What is bad then is some (that is some, not all) of what you would call plot elements that are inserted in a railroady fashion. Some of these plot elements are large scale and resemble Metaplot in that they are on the same scale, and included interspersed with Metaplot, I contend. As in my Shadow World examples where players are expected to find certain world-shatteringly important magic items (my example was not Parody, Ron, the names were merely changed so I wouldn't have to include a spoiler alert). Or as in Ron's example where the party is required to be present at some event of massive importance. This sort of thing is what we find objectionable. And I only find those things objectionable in that I have to mentally parse the text to make the material usable in a fashion that is suitable for me.

Realize that I'm Simulationist, though. For those who are Narativists, they will object to these events a bit more often (note: not always) as any pre-plotting tends to get in the way of Narrativist creativity.


On the topic of the WW or MERP canon, yes, the GM should not sway from canon without informing the players of where he has done so. That being said, a player could reasonably accept the idea that only the core book is cannon in a particular GMs game (that's how everyone played before all the other stuff came out, so certainly that's enough info). Or even only the core book with certain changes.

The problem with players is when one insists that the GM must adhere to canon after the game has started and such a declaration of limitation has been made. A player can always decline to play such a game if such deviations are actually that annoying to said player. Also, GMs may make mistakes, or be un/misinformed. Players should take that into acount before objecting, and seek to work with the GM on such matters. The player behavior described is dysfunctional, though, and is not a problem with well adjusted players (those willing to agree to a social contract). So, it is only really a problem with published metaplot or plot or whatever in that some players seem to want to adhere to it in unreasonable circumstances. The extent to which that can be blamed on the writing is uncertain. I suggest that it's more just a common dysfunction, or lack of player/GM communication.

Mike

Metaplot DOES exist. It is a tool. It can be used in many ways - positive or negative.

I would like to see more game companies produce products that detail every important secret and the ultimate timeline of a game up front. Or better, game companies that shift away from metaplot to gm-assisting setting books. Unfortunately, this won't happen. Metaplots are basically the CGG-expansions and CGG-booster packs for RPGs. The inherent bad thing about selling RPGs is that metaplot is really the only way (IMO) in roleplaying games to build a demand or tension for a new release.

For Deadlands: Hell on Earth, I never was urgent and excited about their release of their Sykers character book. But on the other hand, I was waiting urgently for the "Boise Horror" adventure. In retrospect, the Boise Horror adventure is one of the worst adventures I own. *sigh* So do I have a point?

I don't know.

Thanks,
Nathan
nathan@mysticages.com

Given your definition of Metaplot, all Metaplot is good (in

the context of this discussion). What is bad then is some (that is some, not all) of what you would call plot elements that are inserted in a railroady fashion. Some of

these plot elements are large scale and resemble Metaplot in that they are on the same scale, and included interspersed with Metaplot, I contend. As in my Shadow

wouldn't have to include a spoiler alert). Or as in Ron's example where the party is required to be present at some event of massive importance. This sort of thing is what we find objectionable. And I only find those things

The problem with players is when one insists that the GM must adhere to canon after the game has started and such a declaration of limitation has been made. A player can

contract). So, it is only really a problem with published metaplot or plot or whatever in that some players seem to want to adhere to it in unreasonable circumstances. The

I think this whole thread has wandered away from my original post which simply asked if Metaplot was inherently antithetical to story creation in the Narrativist sense. The answer that seemed to be derived very quickly and to my satisfaction was that "No, it is not inherently antithetical to story creation if the metaplot is used wholely as setting." or as Gareth prefers, "No, it is not inherently antithetical to story creation if the metaplot is not used as plot," since to him metaplot IS setting.

I'm happy with all this. However, I thought I'd like to clearify the point with some more concrete examples from history and film. Let's take a look at the film Titanic.

The sinking of the Titanic is for all intents and purposes a metaplot point. It's going to happen regardless of what the players do. This, however, is not antithetical to story creation in the Narrativist sense because the story is not ABOUT the Titanic. The story is about the two lovers. The iceberg is merely an event that is used to "spike" that conflict to use a term from down in the Sorcerer forum.

However, had the story been ABOUT the Titanic in some way then we would begin to have problems. Let's say this was an RPG and all the players were the major crew of the ship including the captain and first mate. And the whole point of play was that they were trying to beat their sister ship across the atlantic. Now the story is ABOUT the ship. In order for story creation in the Narrativist sense to take place the players MUST be able to influence the plot as they see fit. If the GM, however, insists on railroading the collision with the iceberg despite anything the players do then the metaplot point has been used in a manner that is antithetical to story creation in the Narrativist sense.

To return wholely to the RPG medium lets look at the slave revolt from the Athas suplement. It was a slave revolt wasn't it? If the story at hand were about say two slaves in love or even more interesting a slave in love with her master then the slave revolt could be used in a manner similar to the sinking of the Titanic. That is, the slave revolt can be used as a background setting influence with a large impact on the story at hand.

However, if the story is somehow ABOUT the slave revolt, then the focus shifts from being about the players who are simply slaves to being about the NPC who is liberating the slaves. The story is now about the NPC liberating the slaves and the players are simply minor characters there to back that NPC up and "live out" the event.

What I think Ron objects to, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a great deal of published material fails to present these events in the first manner but rather goes out of their way to present the material in the second manner. And personally, I agree.

Hope this has been helpful.

Jesse

Gareth,

Reviewing all the posts on this thread, and most especially mine, I can see no evidence that ANYONE objects to a detailed, changing setting for play. (You call this "metaplot." I do not. No big deal.)

The only objection has been levelled exactly as Jesse describes it: toward published material that overtly, specifically, and clearly diminishes the role of the characters as protagonists in any sort of story at all.

Best,
Ron

This is really starting to seem like argument for argument's sake at this point. I hesitate to go on, but being the beligerent bastard that I am... :smile:

Thats something of an overstatement. I'm supporting the position that is is not, as the initial post in this thread offered, inherently and automatically bad.

But, inserted into WHAT in a railroady fashion? Surely this would have to be an actual game happening at the table. In which case inserting anything is an action by the GM and, as was pointed out in the initial post, thats a self-inflicted wound. It only ever arises as an issue if the GM makes it their business to put the PC's in a position where they are in direct control of the setting at the particular critical juncture.

Well sure. I'm not claiming that everything written by RPG publishers is necessarily good. But I think there is a clear distinction between plot which the characters are expected to experience directly, and metaplot which provides a dynamic background.

Ok, but I still don't understand why you cannot work around the limitation.

Now this is much more closely written, not so much metaplot as plot IMO. But even there, it seems to imply that no event should occur in a game which the players do not wholly control.

Granted, I have not read the Athas supplement in question, but I'm not sure what is inherently bad about exposing a group of characters to the dramatic its in what amount to social history. Or at least, I cannot see whats necessarily bad about it merely because such an event is "scheduled" to occur.

Why can a character not be a participant in D-Day, as an event which occurs in the setting, and for the purpose of exposition of this setting-driven event. What is it about the proximity of the characters to this Spartacus-type and the uprising they are apparanelt leading that turns this from setting into railroading. It suggests that characters should never be participants in events larger than themselves, which seems unnecessarily limiting.

Yeah, sure, but I could imagine reasons that a GM might deliberately conceal some of the changes they have made.

Well that very much depends on whether you think you ahve been sold a pig in a poke or not. If you feel - rightly or wrongly - that you have joined a game under what amounts to false pretences, you're likely to be a bit miffed. All I am suggesting is that I don't think players are being radically unccoperative if they express a preference for playing in an established world as they understand it to be established.

I don't think that the GM has the right to simply say that its their game and they can do what they want - players have expectations too, and I think that the GM has a duty to discuss with them what the changes are and what ramifications these changes have.

Like Jesse, I think his original query has been pretty well satisfied, even if there's some disagreement between "metaplot" and "plot" for a few folks.

The issue that Mike brought up, that metaplot supplements are hard to use because they usually make assumption that the PCs will behave in a predictable manner and follow through a predetermined order, is a good one. I think the narrative process is done better justice by just leaving the supplements on the shelf and using them for inspiration rather than plot device ~if~ Simultionist-to-Narrativist Drift is the play group's intention.

I think anything detailing the behaviour of the *PC's* cannot be described as metaplot, but Plot, and that is why I find the "problem" rather strange. How can a METAplot have anything to say about the PC's use of a whatsit? But nevermind - I shall just put this down to the Forge's tendency for self-confirmation.

Y'know, there are times when I've enjoyed a well-written metaplot, and it's spurred ideas for a campaign.

In WW's Trinity, they mention a mining colony that gets cut off from the rest of humanity when the teleporters (whose psi abilities provide the means of interstellar travel) mysteriously disappear. In addition, the mining colony was under attack by a previously unknown alien species when it was cut off. I thought, "Wow. That mining colony would be a cool setting." So far, it's setting. But when WW released a pre-plotted adventure incorporating this colony, did it bother me? Not at all. I took what I wanted, discarded the rest, and absolutely didn't worry about official canon.

On some level, I'm not sure why the debate has reached the intensity it has. Pre-plotted material of necessity tends to be on rails. Setting expansions and pre-plotted adventures only qualify as canon if the GM/group goes along with it. It's not rocket science.

Anyway, I'm rambling.

Best,

Blake

Hello,

Blake, it's clear that people are getting VERY confused about the difference between railroading (GM muscles in on player decisions) and just plain GMing (GM establishes or frames situations).

I will be posting eventually on some metaplot ideas, but this thread went into negative territory a while ago, so I'm not inclined to keep it going.

This is mainly in the interest of keeping forums in digestible chunks, and has nothing to do with stopping the discussion on the ideas. If anyone would like to continue, let's start a new thread.

Best,
Ron